Bava Metzia 8

Chapter 8

א סלעים דינרין מלוה אומר חמש ולוה אומר שלש ר"ש בן אלעזר אומר הואיל והודה מקצת הטענה ישבע ר"ע אומר אינו אלא כמשיב אבידה ופטור

1 [When a plaintiff produces a promissory note for] sela's1

ב קתני מיהת רשב"א אומר הואיל והודה מקצת הטענה ישבע טעמא דאמר שלש הא שתים פטור והאי שטר דקמודי ביה הילך הוא וש"מ הילך פטור

2 or denarii2

ג לא לעולם אימא לך שתים חייב והאי דקתני שלש לאפוקי מדר' עקיבא דאמר משיב אבידה הוי ופטור קמ"ל דמודה מקצת הטענה הוי וחייב

3 [without any figures], the creditor says, it is for five [sela's or denarii], and the debtor says, it is for three, R. Simeon b. Eleazar says: Seeing that [the debtor] has admitted part of the claim, he must take an oath [for the rest]. R. Akiba says: He is only like a restorer of lost [property],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For sela's would really mean two (the minimum number to which the plural could be applied) and if the debtor says 'three' he admits more than there is evidence for. The third sela' is therefore like a restored loss, in connection with which no oath can be imposed (cf. Git., 48b). ');">3

ד אי הכי רשב"א אומר הואיל והודה מקצת הטענה ישבע אף זה ישבע מבעי ליה

4 and he is free [from taking an oath]. In any case we are told that R. Simeon b. Eleazar says, 'Seeing that he has admitted part of the claim, he must take an oath'. Now the reason is presumably that [the debtor] said 'three', but [if he had said] 'two' he would have been free [from the oath], and seeing that the admission of 'two', for which the note is sufficient evidence, is like [the offer] 'Here they are',4

ה אלא לעולם שתים פטור והילך חייב ושאני הכא דקא מסייע ליה שטרא

5 it follows that 'Here they are' does not involve an oath? — No; I could quite well maintain that when he says 'two' he also has to take an oath, and the reason why 'three' is stated is to express disagreement with R. Akiba, who maintains that the debtor [who says 'three'] is like a restorer of lost [property] and free [from taking an oath]. We are thus informed that he is like one who admits part of the claim, and that he has to take an oath.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For in the case of the debtor saying 'two', R. Akiba would not have differed, and there would have been no occasion for this comparison with the restoration of a lost object. ');">5

ו אי נמי משום דהוה ליה שטר שעבוד קרקעות ואין נשבעין על כפירת שעבוד קרקעות

6 But if this is so, [and 'two' also involves an oath,] should not R. Simeon b. Eleazar, who says, 'Seeing that he has admitted part of the claim he must take an oath,' have said instead: He also must swear?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If 'two' involves an oath, then it was wrong to give 'partial admission' as a reason for the oath, since in such a case there would be no admission apart from what is proved by the written document. On the other hand, it should have been emphasised that 'three' also involved an oath, in spite of the fact that the admission of the third sela' is like the restoration of a lost object to its owner. ');">6

ז איכא דמותיב מסיפא ר"ע אומר אינו אלא כמשיב אבידה ופטור טעמא דאמר שלש הא שתים חייב והא שטר (כיון) דקא מודי ביה כהילך דמי ש"מ הילך חייב

7 — Therefore it must be assumed that 'two' is free, and 'Here they are' involves an oath, but our present case is different, because the written document supports him,7

ח לא לעולם אימא לך שתים נמי פטור והאי דקתני שלש לאפוקי מדרשב"א דאמר מודה מקצת הטענה הוי וחייב קמ"ל דמשיב אבידה הוי ופטור

8 or because the written document has the effect of pledging the debtor's landed property [to the creditor,] and no oath is taken in a dispute connected with mortgaged land.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Seeing that 'two' is corroborated by the written document, no oath can be imposed, either in a case of denial or in one of admission, because the document puts the debtor's landed property under a bond, and, as explained in Shebu. 42b, no oath is administered in connection with mortgaged property. But when the debtor says 'three', the dispute about the remainder as well as the admission of the third sela' concern something that is not mentioned in the document, and which does not therefore affect the debtor's landed property. ');">8

ט הכי נמי מסתברא דאי סלקא דעתך שתים חייב בשלש היכי פטר ליה ר"ע האי אערומי קא מערים סבר אי אמינא שתים בעינא אשתבועי אימא שלש דאהוי כמשיב אבידה ואיפטר אלא ש"מ שתים נמי פטור

9 Some construe the objection from the latter clause: 'R. Akiba says, he is only like the restorer of lost [property], and he is free [from taking an oath].' Now the reason is presumably that he said 'three', but [if he had said] 'two'9

י אלא קשיא לרבי חייא שאני התם דקא מסייע ליה שטרא א"נ משום דהוה ליה שטר שעבוד קרקעות ואין נשבעין על כפירת שעבוד קרקעות

10 he would have had to swear; and seeing that the admission [of 'two'], for which the note is sufficient evidence, is like [the offer] 'Here they are', it follows that 'Here they are necessitates an oath? — No; I could quite well maintain that when he says 'two' he is also free [from taking an oath], and the reason why 'three' is stated is to express disagreement with R. Simeon b. Eleazar, who says that [the debtor] is like one who admits part of the claim, and he has to take an oath: We are thus informed that he is like the restorer of lost [property], and he is free [from taking an oath].

יא מתיב מר זוטרא בריה דרב נחמן טענו כלים וקרקעות הודה בכלים וכפר בקרקעות הודה בקרקעות וכפר בכלים פטור הודה מקצת קרקעות פטור מקצת כלים חייב

11 And, indeed, this stands to reason, for if we were to assume that 'two' necessitates an oath, how could R. Akiba dispense with the oath in the case of 'three': this [debtor] could surely employ a ruse, In that he might think: If I say 'two' I shall have to swear; I will say 'three', so that I shall be like a restorer of a loss, and I shall be free. Therefore we must conclude that [if he says] 'two' he is also free. But does not a difficulty arise as regards R. Hiyya?10

יב טעמא דכלים וקרקעות דקרקע לאו בת שבועה היא הא כלים וכלים דומיא דכלים וקרקעות חייב היכי דמי לאו דאמר ליה הילך וש"מ הילך חייב

12 — There11

יג לא לעולם אימא לך כלים וכלים נמי פטור והא דקתני כלים וקרקעות הא קמ"ל הודה במקצת כלים חייב אף על הקרקעות

13 it is different, for the written document supports him,12

יד מאי קמ"ל זוקקין תנינא זוקקין הנכסים שאין להן אחריות את הנכסים שיש להן אחריות לישבע עליהם

14 or because the written document has the effect of pledging the debtor's landed property, and no oath is taken in a dispute connected with mortgaged land.

טו הכא עיקר התם אגב גררא נסבה

15 Mar Zutra, the son of R. Nahman, then asked: [We learnt:] If one claims vessels and land, and the claim in regard to the vessels is admitted, but the claim in regard to the land is disputed, or the claim in regard to the land is admitted, but the claim in regard to the vessels is disputed, the debtor is free [from taking an oath in regard to the disputed claim]. If he admits part of the claim in regard to the land, he is free [from taking an oath]; if he admits part of the claim in regard to the vessels he is obliged [to take an oath].13 Now the reason why [he is free when the claim concerns both land and vessels] is [presumably] that an oath does not apply to land, but where the claim concerns two sets of vessels, in the same way as the claim regarding the land and the vessels,14 he is obliged to [take an oath]: how is this to be understood? Is it not that the debtor said to the creditor, 'Here they are'? So it follows that 'Here they are' necessitates an oath!15 — No; I can quite well maintain that [when] two sets of vessels [are claimed] he is also free [from taking an oath], but the reason why 'vessels and land' are mentioned is to let us know that when [the debtor] admits part of the claim in regard to the vessels he is obliged [to take an oath] even as regards the land. What new information does he proffer us? The law of extension of obligation? We have learnt this already:16 Chattels which do not offer security17 are attached to chattels which offer security,18 in regard to the imposition of an oath [upon the debtor]!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When claims arise simultaneously in regard to both kinds of chattels, and an oath is due regarding the movable ones, it is extended also to the immovable ones. V. Kid. 26a. ');">19 — [The Mishnah quoted] here20 is the principal place [for this law]; there21 it is only mentioned incidentally.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As the law is stated there regarding the acquisition of movable chattels in conjunction with immovable ones by means of money, document, or actual possession, reference is also made to the extension of the oath from movable chattels to immovable ones. ');">22

Previous Chapter Next Chapter